BrainDrain,

On bias,

Looking back:

-Shaw quotes Wolfowitz, incorrectly, to argue that the war was a sham.

-I present full quotes, question Shaw's interpretation, and question how he uses evidence to justify his arguments.

-BrainDrain says, "You quote Wolfowitz, almost exclusively, as some kind of arbiter of truth," and "I don't trust the man who was one of the architects behind the illegal invasion!"

Three problems with this last response:

-As stated in my previous post, I was setting the record straight on the correct meaning of his statement. (Arguing that Iraq has abundant resources and could fund its own recovery does not require viewing W as an exclusive arbiter of truth.)

-If you think his word counts for nothing, Shaw should never have quoted him.

-You show your own bias and circular reasoning; Shaw argues that the war is a sham based on what W says, and you argue that what W says is untrustworthy because he planned the sham war. This bias informs your arguments.

I have been attempting to systematically assess your evidence and the assumptions underlying your own evaluations.

On Butler,

“But I think what we are seeing now is the very strong possibility that towards the end, just before the war began, Iraq either began to destroy those weapons or moved them out possibly to Syria.”

Precisely.

Consider that “Saddam’s handling of Iraq’s response to the 9/11 attacks probably reflects a lack of understanding of US politics and may explain why Baghdad failed to appreciate how profoundly US attitudes had changed following September 2001.” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-05.htm) US policy makers believed that Saddam would understand that nothing less that total cooperation would suffice. Thus, incomplete cooperation, combined with WMD “unaccounted for,” translated into- “he’s got them.” Thus, Saddam’s miscalculation led to his own downfall.

NPT,

The US is indeed undermining its case by developing tactical nukes. Interestingly, the US would actually have the most to gain from global nuclear disarmament, and the hardest stumbling blocks would be smaller states with weaker conventional deterrents.

Shonga,

Did my representation of the facts, contrary to your own, hurt your feelings?

dozer,

Thankyou for your systematic assessment it IS appreciated.

(As is your intelligence and efforts to be as fair as you are able)

I have to correct an apparent assumption on your part and an area where we are not on the same 'page'.

I'm not actually supporting or even considering any of Shaw's argument. My focus is on what i know (and can investigate) and your comments. I admit you are more 'on topic' in this sense but i am not arguing circularly with you or Shaw over Wolfowitz even if you believe such a circularity exists. Shaw's original statements are not the basis for my reasoning. We MAY share a common idea but i don't rely upon Shaw for my belief.

Hence, in answer to points 1,2 and 3 of your post:
1 accepted.
2 refuted, Shaw and i are not directly connected by anything other than that I am writing to a post he initiated. He can do whatever he likes in his inital Article, I am stating my opinions based entirley upon your comments.
3 refuted, see 2.

Any post that has your name on it of mine is addressing your claims, not Shaw's. Is that wrong of me?

As for Butler: 'destroyed them or moved them out, possibly to Syria?'

We ARE talking chemical, bacteriologic and Nuclear WMD's here not small munitions and katushka rockets. Are you serious in thinking Butler was making any kind of sense suggesting Saddam would rather give them to Syria than use them against an invasion? Once the war was over can you imagine Iraq saying: 'Please Syr, can we have our bombs back'?
and YES! we ARE talking actual weapons, not weapons technology, you can't disarm a technologic idea, just actual weapons. The Truth is Saddam DID disarm before the invasion and hence the invasion was illegal. EOS.

As for what Saddam should have done. 25 years of Iraqi history shows quite clearly that Saddam did exactly what he always did and it was the US who made the wrong assumptions and are solely responsible for the current situation.

dozer,
No certainly not mate, in fact in WW2 people like you were known as ENO's in as much as e' thinks e' knows everything, but knows nothing, and also gives you the s#$&s. You are quoting "dozer facts" we are actually discussing a conspiracy I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject instead of your ramblings.

Thank you Shonga, for all his wealth of knowledge dozer seems incapable of digesting a few simple facts.

a)Strategic control of the oilfields in the ME is THE number 1 reason for US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

b) Keeping Russia and China's in their box is a major reason for the ongoing military presence in this region

c) Without 9/11 the US could never have justified their attacks on those nations

Perhaps dozer would care to explain also how a 42 storey building collapsed in under 7 seconds after around 8 hours of burning, an unprecendented phenomonen. We can ignore the coincidence that WTC7 housed CIA and DoD offices.

Carl,
I feel this may be a case of there are none so blind than those who will not see. Poor old dozer. I am embarrassed for him. He is unable to even consider the concept that he may be mistaken, an old saying comes to mind "don't believe everything you read, or see" good advice even in the 21st century, don't you think mate.

SHONGA

ENO’s, and your suggestion that I am blind, could easily be turned around. Perhaps your apparent compulsion to view both important and mundane events, and the explanations given, as fronts for sinister machinations, results from an ignorant mind searching for simple explanations in a vain quest for empowerment. But I have no proof until you present something solid. I have been presenting ideas, sources, arguments. Engage them specifically, and I shall pay more respect.

BrainDrain,

Thanks for continuing to engage in intelligent discussion. This is an enjoyable duel, but a duel none the less.

You are indeed independence of Shaw, and my accusation of circularity is removed. Instead, I argue that you missed the point and changed the subject when you said I was presenting Wolfowitz as an arbiter of truth. The point was to show how Shaw misrepresented Wolfowitz’s words. To say you don’t believe what Wolfowitz says changes the subject.

Regarding his comments, I would argue:

Iraq indeed possesses abundant resources. If the invasion had led to a swift, peaceful transition to a unified, democratic Iraq, it is reasonable to suggest that much of the rebuilding could have been financed by Iraq’s oil wealth. (In response to Carl, it has been argued that it would have taken a decade for the oil fields to turn a good profit, considering the time taken to get production up to speed and the use of profits for rebuilding. (I understand that your argument goes deeper, and I will search for the link.))

The mistake was to underestimate how easy this would be. Neo-Cons were blinkered against considerations about perceptions of the “Arab street.” Rumsfeld’s attitude toward preparations for the post-invasion period were that he saw an overemphasis on such preparation, and the drafting of contingency plans, in case the s#$& (nice use of the shift key SHONGA, but I would have done it differently; $[-]!+,) did hit the fan, as a tacit admission of failure.

If I was advising the Bush Administration, (SHONGA,) I would urge them to stick to their principles but apply a more nuanced understanding of how